Category Archives: Micronesians

Granted, they are primitive Austronesian Asian people with an IQ of 70 and it takes all sorts of social programs to keep them fed and clothed and away from the alcohol but you Gallegos Basque do not even pretend to give a single rat’s ass.

First of all, Amerindians are not Austronesians. Austronesians are Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians and Taiwanese Aborigines. Other people speaking Austronesian languages such as Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians are only part Austronesian.

Polynesians are 1/2 Melanesian and 1/2 Austronesian.

Melanesians vary, but the some of the Austronesian speakers in the Papuan coast and eastern Indonesia are 20% Austronesian and 80% Papuan. Austronesians only settled the coast of Papua, so the interior remained Papuan. The Austronesians brought language but few genes.

I believe Micronesians are 1/2 Polynesian and 1/2 Papuan.

Amerindians are simply Northeast Asians, the same folks as Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians and Siberians, but they are closest to Siberians. The main difference is that the Amerindians are from a more primitive and archaic type of Northeast Asian that may not have gone though the high IQ mutations. I would call them Paleomongoloids, whereas the others are generally Neomongoloids. So Amerindians are just an early version of the highly functional Northeast Asians.

Some relation to the Northeast Asians can be seen in their features and sparse, Northeast Asian like body hair. The hair on their heads looks very Northeast Asian too. Whereas a Northeast Asian baby is calm, cool and collected, an Amerindian baby is silent but very aware and watchful, like an Indian hunter hiding in the woods waiting for a deer. They are so deathly quiet that observers often wonder if they are dead. On the other hand, Black babies are precocious physically, very fast in development and tend to be very active physically and even boisterous. They are quite extroverted.

These racial differences in babies are present from the very earliest stages of life and I am convinced that they are biological in nature. I also believe that this shows that there are obvious differences between the races at least in personality. If those differences are showing up that early and that uniformly, they cannot possibly be due to culture. Babies are not effected tremendously by culture anyway.

Amerindian IQ is absolutely not 70. They are not that dumb. Scores vary, but a figure of 87 for the whole continent seems pretty good. Some are lower. I believe that Indians in Mexico are 83 and in Guatemala is the same.

87 IQ is not a bad score. Your average human has an IQ of 89. Certainly 87 IQ folks or even 83 IQ folks do not need all sorts of social programs to keep them clothed and fed. Keeping them away from the booze is much easier. These people lived life without social programs for 12,000 years. They did just fine. They don’t need welfare to survive.

Although the 87 IQ is close to the 85 US Black IQ, Amerindians have only 2X the White crime rate, whereas for Blacks it is 7-8X the White crime rate. This shows that attempt to put White-Black crime differences all down to IQ is a fool’s errand, but that is what so many HBD types, usually racists, do. There is more driving Black aggression, crime, violence and antisocial behavior than just IQ.

I am thinking that extroversion and associated problems with impulse control and delayed gratification along with higher testosterone in both males and females may have something to do with it. Also some genetic mutations that elevate the risk of violence and criminality in Whites are present at much higher levels in Blacks. It is seen in only .1% of White men, but I believe the rate is ~5% in Black men.

We need to stop IQ fetishization and trying to reduce all racial issues to IQ. There’s a hell of a lot more going on with humans than just IQ, and it doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure that out.

The Aborigines showed up ~15,000 YBP (13-17,000 YBP). Much more archaic types are known before then, including some that look like Homo Erectus.

Even the Khoisan are only known from 12,000 YBP.

Modern Europeans do not show up until 11,000 YBP. Before that, Europeans genetically and phenotypically resemble Arabs. The “White race” is very new. Sorry Alt Reichers.

The modern Negroid race does not show up until 6-12,000 YBP.

Modern Amerindians only show up 8,000 YBP. Before that, they look first Australoid (Lacondon Woman) and then Australoid-Paleomongoloid transitional or Ainuid (Kennebunk Man).

Polynesians and Micronesians only show up 3,000 YBP. Before that, no one lived on those islands.

SE Asians are quite new and have only appeared in the last 5,000 years. Before that, they looked like Aborigines, Negritos, Veddoids or Melanesians (Australoids).

Modern Thais only show up 900 YBP. Before that, they were Paleomongoloids.

Modern South Indians only appear 8,000 YBP. Before that, they looked like Veddoids types or Aborigines (Australoids).

All skulls from Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia from 2,500-25,000 YBP appear Australoid. They look like either Aborigines, Veddoids or Melanesians. Vietnamese anthropologists have studied Vietnamese skulls from 21,000 YBP to present, and the unmistakable conclusion is that the originally Australoid Melanesian skulls slowly from 21,000 YBP become more gracile and finally evolve into full Neomongoloid only 2,300 YBP.

Early Northern Eurasians may have looked like Australoids.

One of the oldest Proto-Caucasoid skulls from 35,000 YBP in the Caucasus has been classed as Australoid.

At the archeological digs in Northern China, skulls prior to 9,000 YBP look like Aborigines (probably Ainuid Australoids). At 9,000 YBP, they transition into Mongoloids, maybe with Caucasoid input.

Anyway, ancient Caucasoids look anything but. 22,000 YBP Caucasoids from Central Europe look more like the Makah Indians of NW Washington State than anyone else. So Europeans at this time looked like Paleomongoloids.

ultracool writes: This is a very interesting and insightful post, I see you are very intelligent and bold to write all this stuff, Robert. Still I think the problem with genes is that they don’t always match appearance, I think that were you to sort races according to physical traits only, you could put most Oceanians in the same race as Africans, as they share several traits like dark skin, thick lips and kinky hair, though I am not sure about Australians as they have quite a distinct look.

Even if you do physical appearance, you cannot throw those people in with Africans. Those people are Australoids – Melanesians, Papuans, Negritos, Senoi, Veddoids, Tamils, Aborigines, a few Polynesians, Ainu and a few Amerindians such as Tierra del Fuegans and some Baja Californians have very similar skulls. All of the skulls plot right together on a chart. Granted, Australoid and African skulls are close to each other on charts, but they do plot differently.

Polynesians and Micronesians are different – they are an Australoid-Mongoloid mix. Their genes plot with Asians, and their skulls plot differently from Australoids. However, some Polynesian skulls plot next to other Australoids such as the Ainu.

Australoid genes are all over the map. Melanesian genes plot next to other Oceanians with a subgroup of Island SE Asians that also includes some Indonesians. Philippines Negritos plot with Filipinos. Thai Negritos plot with Thais. Andaman Islanders plot off on their own, possibly in two completely different major races. Veddoids and Tamils plot with the other Indian Caucasians. Papuans and Aborigines are related only to each other and even then only very distantly, and they are very far from everyone else. Next to Africans and Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines are are the other oldest races. Outside of Africa, Andaman Islanders and Thai Negritos are the oldest races.

The Australoid is the archaic Asian type, and the Mongoloid is the fully transitioned more progressive type.

Koreans, Nivkhis, Eskimos, Mongolians, many Siberians, Japanese, and Northern Chinese are all Northern Neomongoloids. The transition began 9,000 YBP in the north. The Ainu represent the base type that transitioned to Neomongoloid in the north.

In the South, Southern Chinese, most of the ethnics in Southern China especially Yunnan, Hmong, Mien, and Vietnamese at least are Southern Neomongoloids. The transition happened much later in the South, 2,000-5,000 YBP.

Because it happened so much later, a lot of people in the south are not fully transitioned, hence they are considered to be Paleomongoloids or Australoid-Mongoloid transitionals. In the South, the Paleos are Taiwanese aborigines, most SE Asians, Filipinos, Indonesians and Naga at the very least. Polynesians and Micronesians are also probably Paleomongoloids.

Paleomongoloids to the north include the Ryukuyans and the Ainu.

Amerinds are often considered to be Paleos because they seem to represent a more archaic Mongoloid type than say the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese or even the Eskimos.

If Chinese are equivalent to Americans and Koreans to Nordics, which European or Caucasian type will the Japanese and Vietnamese be equivalent to?

Not sure, Japanese and Koreans are pretty much identical. I am not sure what to do with Vietnamese.

Those types of comparisons between Mongoloids and Caucasoids are very difficult and maybe impossible to do – the groups are just too different and they have very different histories.

If you are asking what an archaic protoform or paleo transition form of Caucasians may look like, maybe they are similar to South Indians.

Thing is, we can see a lot of the transition in Asia. There are still many Australoid proto-Asians (Melanesians, Papuans, Aborigines, Ainu, Senoi, Negritos, Tamils) and there are also many Neomongoloid Neoasians (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Koreans, Vietnamese). In between we have the Paleomongoloid Paleoasians in transition (Polynesians, Micronesians, Thais, Lao, Khmer, Malays, Indonesians, Filipinos, Taiwan aborigines, Nagas).

For Caucasoids we simply have Caucasoids. Not many people make a distinction between Neocaucasians, Paleocaucasians and Protocaucasians because hardly anyone knows what the Paleos and Protos look like. We are probably not even sure what a Paleocaucasian looks like, but the South Indians and the Saami may be a good example. We are lost when it comes to Protocaucasians. In other words, for Caucasians, we mostly just have the fully transitioned form in Europeans, Near Easterners, Central Asians and even in Arabs and North Africans. All of these are pretty much fully transitioned Caucasians. But no one really knows that they transitioned from or what the transitioning forms looked like.

Asia looks a lot more in flux. The world of the Caucasians looks like a done deal.

Now this is confusing because southeast Asians look Mongoloid yet are on the Australoid branch. You seem to think this is evidence of Australoid evolving into Mongoloids. More likely, Southeast Asians are just a hybrid of Mongoloids and Australoids just as Indians are a hybrid of Caucasoids and Australoids.

Pumpkin is confusing genes with skulls and phenotypes. The problem is that ancient Caucasoids look anything but Caucasoid, and ancient Northern Eurasians look anything but Northern Eurasians. Both ancient Caucasoids and ancient Northern Eurasians looked like Australoids or Paleomongoloids phenotypically.

It is important to note that phenotypically, all races are modern.

The Aborigines showed up 15,000 YBP. Much more archaic types are known before then, including some that look like Homo Erectus.

Even the Khoisan are only known from 12,000 YBP.

Modern Europeans do not show up until 11,000 YBP. Before that, Europeans genetically and phenotypically resemble Arabs.

The modern Negroid race does not show up until 6-12,000 YBP.

Modern Amerindians only show up 8,000 YBP. Before that, they look Australoid and then Australoid-Paleomongoloid transitional.

Polynesians and Micronesians only show up 3,000 YBP. Before that, no one lived there.

SE Asians are quite new and have only appeared in the last 5,000 years. Before that, they looked like Aborigines, Negritos, Veddoids or Melanesians (Australoids).

Modern Thais only show up 900 YBP. Before that, they were Paleomongoloids.

Modern South Indians only appear 8,000 YBP. Before that, they looked like Veddoids types or Aborigines (Australoids).

All skulls from Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia from 2,500-25,000 YBP appear Australoid. They look like either Aborigines, Veddoids or Melanesians. Vietnamese anthropologists have studied Vietnamese skulls from 21,000 YBP to present, and the unmistakeable conclusion is that the originally Australoid Melanesian skulls slowly become more gracile and finally evolve into full Neomongoloid 2,300 YBP.

Those Northern Eurasians may have looked like Australoids.

One of the oldest Caucasoid skulls from 35,000 YBP in the Caucasus has been classed as Australoid.

At the archeological digs in Northern China, skulls prior to 9,000 YBP look like Aborigines (probably Ainuid Australoids). At 9,000 YBP, they transition into Mongoloids, maybe with Caucasoid input as Pumpkin suggests.

Pumpkin is talking about genes, and I am comparing skulls, so we are going to get different results. Anyway, ancient Caucasoids look anything but. 22,000 YBP Caucasoids from Central Europe look more like the Makah Indians of NW Washington State than anyone else. So Europeans at this time looked like Paleomongoloids.

The islands close to the Philippines, the Solomon Islands in particular, are black, so it’s fair to say they might be part black. However, Filipinos are very prejudiced against black people, or maybe just US blacks. But then again, I think some snobbery exists among lighter skinned blacks vs darker ones. The Haitian elite, for instance, are mulatto.

The Solomon Islanders are not Black in any way, shape or form. They are Melanesians. Melanesians are Australoids related distantly to Papuans and Aborigines. Solomon Islander skulls look like Ainu, Senoi, Tamil, Vedda, Negrito, Papuan and Aborigine skulls. However, genetically, Melanesians are very far from Papuans or Aborigines and probably cannot be considered to be Australoid by genes.

Genetically, they look more like Polynesians and Micronesians. This makes sense, as both Polynesians and Micronesians have a strong Melanesian component. Melanesians are an ancient people dating all way back to 40,000 YBP and they are a very internally diverse race. They are probably newer, more progressive and less archaic than Papuans and Aborigines.

It is a common misconception that Melanesians are Black people. A lot of them do look superficially like Black people.

We usually do not think of them that way. Most Filipinos are not archaic but some people who live in the Philippines are archaic. For instance, Negritos are obviously archaic. I believe the Igorots may be archaic. They resemble Taiwan aborigines and a number of them look almost Caucasian. There are also primitive Filipino groups such as the Mangyans, but I am not sure how archaic they are.

There are out of and out Australoids in the far east of Indonesia. These are Melanesians with about 20% Taiwan aborigine mix, somewhat like coastal New Guinea people except these Melanesians have more Chinese in them.

I would say that the Sea Dayaks of Borneo are archaic.

So the Igorots of the Philippines and the Sea Dayaks of Indonesia at least appear to be archaic Paleomongoloids.

The Filipinos and Indonesians themselves are fairly modern creations mostly via repeated infusions of Taiwan aborigines, mostly the Ami, who came by boats. These migrations happened over 3,000 years in the Philippines with the last one being ~2,000 YBP. The movement into Indonesia was about 2-3,000 YBP.

They moved along the north coast of Indonesia on their way to coastal New Guinea where they bred in with Papuans and became the Coastal New Guinea people, who are different from the Papuan Highlanders. They then went to Polynesia and Micronesia but apparently not Melanesia. The Polynesians are 50% Melanesian and 50% Taiwan aborigine and I think the Micronesians are 50% Polynesian and 50% Taiwan aborigine, so they are 25% Melanesian.

I suppose we could call Polynesians and Micronesians Paleomongoloids, but most people don’t seem want to do that for some reason. For instance, Moiriori skulls line up very well with the Ainu and the very archaic Paleomongoloid Kennewick Man in the Americas, so groups like the Maori are obviously archaic

These Taiwan aborigines who left Taiwan were the Lapita people, the greatest mariners that ever lived.

The base for Indonesians which makes up 80% of the genome is a mysterious group called Proto-Dai. The Dai are a people who live in Yunnan in Southern China. Their ancestors apparently migrated to Indonesia during a glacial period involving flooding and they have gotten stuck out there due to flooding of land bridges. The Proto-Dai were probably a Melanesian type, Australoids.

However these proto-Dai have been evolving in Indonesia for 15,000 years. During the same period in Vietnam, Melanesian types have been slowly transitioning to Neomongoloids. In Vietnam the process was completed 2,300 YBP, a date which coincides with a massive invasion of Vietnam by Southern Chinese which seems to have resulted in a massive infusion of Chinese blood. In other words, the Vietnamese transition to Neomongoloid 2,300 YBP was caused by a massive infusion of Southern Chinese stock. Vietnamese are very new Neomongoloids and I believe they still have Australoid residual features.

A principal component of the Filipinos representing the maternal genome goes back up to 30,000 YBP and may represent the Negrito people or something other Australoid type. There were other peoples that moved into the Filipinos down through the years, including a group that looks like Ainuids. Proto-Ainuids were in Thailand 16,000 YBP, and they went, apparently by boat, to Japan by 13,000 YBP where they become the Jomon people. It stands to reason that they might have stopped by the Philippines along the way.

While the maternal Filipino stock is ancient Asian Negrito or Melanesian type, the male line consists mostly of Taiwan aborigines, mostly the Ami tribe, who came in waves over the last 5,000 years. The Ami lived on the coast of Taiwan and were expert boat-builders, and it is thought that they are the Austronesian people who populated much of Island SE Asia and Oceania. Filipinos also have a fair amount of modern Chinese who have come in in the last 800 years. Many of these were Taiwanese Hoklo or South Chinese from Hong Kong and the Guangdong region.

It is best to split the Mongoloid race into two branches – Northern and Southern Mongoloids.

Northern Mongoloids include the North Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Xibe, Oroquens, Mongolians and various Siberians.

North Mongoloid – South Korean girl.

Southern Mongoloids include a large grouping including many of the peoples of South China – Tibetans, Dai, Burmese, Thai, Hmong, Khmer, Lao, Vietnamese, Malay, Filipinos, and most Indonesians.

Southern Chinese – Northern and Southern Mongoloid mix.

Below is a pure Southern Mongoloid.

Southern Mongoloid – Kinaray-a Filipina.

For comparison purposes, see a Japanese (N. Mongoloid) and Filipino (S. Mongoloid) mix below.

Japanese – Filipina mix. A mixture of N. Mongoloid and S. Mongoloid in this case results in a phenotype that is mostly N. Mongoloid.

There is a lot of controversy on the boards about this issue. Some say that Southeast Asians are not pure Mongoloids – that instead they are Mongoloid-Australoids. Most of this critique comes from Chinese racists. Many of these Chinese are overseas Chinese who live in the Philippines and Indonesia. Chinese people are unbelievably racist as it is, but the overseas Chinese are some of the most insanely racist of all the Chinese, far more racist than the mainland Chinese.

This is all based on something called Han Supremacism. Han Supremacism is the underlying racist ideology behind almost all Chinese racism. Han Supremacism generally says that Northern Chinese are superior to Southern Chinese. The Southern Chinese were originally the Yue people, but they got conquered by the Han and become Hanized.

According to Han racism, only the Han are Chinese people. All of the other ethnic groups in China – and there are over 80 of them – are all “non-Chinese.” Hence the Taiwan aborigines, the Dai, the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Mongolians, the Hmong, and some would say even the Cantonese, are all “non-Chinese.”

This is the most vicious Nazi-like ethnic nationalism, whereby only the majority ethnic group is defined as part of the nation and the rest of the residents of the land are said to be “foreigners.” This was precisely the fascist ethnic nationalism that overtook Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s and it is essential to all fascist movements all over the globe. It was also a part of the ideology of the fascist Young Turks of Turkey when they murdered 2.5 million “non-Turks.” This same fascist ideology resurfaced again in the Balkans in the 1990’s.

The Han want to believe that Southeast Asians are inferior to Northeast Asians. This way of thinking is also prevalent among Japanese, but most Japanese don’t even bother to think about Southeast Asians. They are more concerned with Koreans. The reason for the inferiority of Southeast Asians, according to Han racists, is that they are part Australoid. Strictly speaking, this is not really true.

What is true is that the transition from Australoid to Mongoloid took place much later in Southeast Asia than it did in Northeast Asia. The NE Asian transition took place 9,000 years ago, and the SE Asian transition, at least in Vietnam, took place ~2,200 years ago. Nevertheless, actual Australoid genes in SE Asians are few in number. The Malay and the South Vietnamese have a few Papuan genes, but the numbers are very small. Filipinos only have a sprinkling of genes from the Negritos, similar to the Amerindian genes in many White Americans.

Southeast Asians do tend to have darker skin than Northeast Asians. The fact that they have lighter skin is one of the reasons why North Chinese look down on South Chinese so much.

Even Southern Chinese can have fairly dark skin – see the group below.

Southern Chinese. Note that some Southern Chinese can have fairly dark skin.

Some Filipinas have skin that is so dark that they could well be Blasians – Black-Asian mixes. However, the woman below is a pure Filipina.

Some Filipinas look very dark. This Filipina could even be a Blasian, but she is 100% Filipina.

While most Filipinos have no observable Negrito blood, in the urban slums, you can sometimes see Filipinos with Negrito elements. The girls below seem to be mostly Southern Mongoloid (Filipino) but they seem to have a small Negrito element.

Slum dwelling children in the Philippines. These kids appear to have some Negrito in them. Some Filipinos have observable Negrito elements, but most do not.

Below are Filipino Negritos. They would be regarded as an Australoid people.

Pure Ati from the Philippines. These Negrito people have very low population numbers and may even be going extinct.

The Negrito woman and her child below have quite a bit of Mongoloid genes in them.

The true Australoid-Mongoloid types would be the Eastern Indonesians, the Melanesians, the Micronesians and the Polynesians. The Polynesians are ~50% Austronesian and ~50% Melanesian. Micronesians have more Melanesian in them. Melanesians are a mix primarily of Austronesian and Papuan.

I believe that a bit more changes are necessary to be made to the race classifications you have here Robert. I believe that the Garos, Nicobarese, Negritos (Orang Asli, Semang, Aeta, Senoi, etc.), Melanesians, Micronesians, and possibly Ainus should be classed as Australoid.

Now, hear me out if you will: They have mixed to varying degrees with Mongoloids, but still maintain Australoid appearances, so it is nonsensical (I believe) to class them as Mongoloid simply due to some Mongoloid admixture.

I also believe that a separate “mixed-race” macro category (or “non-classifiable”) category should be made for those in your categories who are of mixed-race. Caucasoid-Mongoloid: Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara. Caucasoid-Negroid: Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers (all Berbers shouldn’t be classed as belonging to one macro race).

And those certain Pacific Islanders, be they Melanesians or Micronesian, who are obviously a Australoid-Mongoloid mixture.

The Nepalese are a mixture of Indo-Aryans from India as well as Mongoloid groups from the Himalayas (so they are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixture).

The Ainus have mixed with the Mongoloid Japanese due to promoted miscegenation by the Japanese government, so many Ainus now have Mongoloid genes, but I still think that they are distinct enough from Mongoloids to be possibly classed as Australoid (which you yourself have called them).

I thank the poster for his input.

The problem here is that the poster is confusing phenotypical race with genetic race. The races of man post dealt only with genetic race, using Cavalli-Sforza as a template and then expanding from there. The problem is that genetic race often does not line up with phenotypical race. For instance, some types are Australoid by phenotype, but not by genes. Only the Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines seem to fall into an Australoid race by genes.

The Garos are similar to other groups in the far east of India such as the Naga. The Nicobarese are very strange, but the general idea is that they are just archaic SE Asian types, migrated down from Yunnan Province in China maybe 5000 YBP with some of the original Austroasiatic speakers.

I have no genetic data on the Orang Asli or the Senoi. The Senoi at least are certainly Australoid by phenotype. Once again, these are ancient Proto-Malay early Austroasiatic types migrated down from Yunnan 5000 YBP or so. The Orang Asli are some of the original people of the planet outside of Africa, but are they phenotypically Australoid?

The Aeta are phenotypically Australoid, yes, but genetically, they are closer to Filipinos than to anyone else.

Melanesians and Micronesians genetically fit into a nice little category within the Oceanians of the SE Asian race even though they have some Australoid mix – the Melanesians much more than the Micronesians.

A mixed race macro-race of some sort did not make sense to me in terms of a rational classification, though I did think about it. Some groups are just too recent to be classified at all, such as Hispanic mestizos and mulattos.

For groups like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara, I had to look up percentages of Asian and Caucasian. If they were a bit more Caucasian, they went into Caucasian. If they were more Asian, they went into Asian. Groups for which I had no data were not listed. It was scatter-shot, but I could not think of anything else to do.

For the Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers, I did try to fit most of these into some race or another. However, I will agree with you here that I may need a new category. I have long contemplated a sort of Horner Major Race, splitting the Horners off from the rest of the Africans. The Horners are just too different from the rest of the Africans. They are about 1/2 way between Africans and Caucasians.

I realize that the Berbers are a mess, but there was not much I could do with them, and I don’t want to make a major race out of them. Sometimes you just have to improvise.

The Nepalese fit well into Caucasian on most charts. Granted, they are some of the most diverse Caucasians out there, but so are the Indians for that matter.

Although the Ainu are phenotypically Australoid, genetically they are quite close to the Japanese and the Koreans, so it makes sense to call them NE Asians genetically.